Ms Mugford

[Sparkfilms]

Well, it's not good news from Mugford's friend.

The police were none to keen on her.

In fact the police were none to keen on the extended family.

It does appear that the police offered Mugford a deal but that there was nothing sinister or underhand in their actions.

They made it clear that if she was ever caught breaking the law again she would be dealt with just like anyone else.

Her friend has offered up a little more info, but nothing that would impact on anything much.

[bob]

Well, it's not good news from Mugford's friend.

The police were none to keen on her.

In fact the police were none to keen on the extended family.

It does appear that the police offered Mugford a deal but that there was nothing sinister or underhand in their actions.

They made it clear that if she was ever caught breaking the law again she would be dealt with just like anyone else.

Her friend has offered up a little more info, but nothing that would impact on anything much.

That's only "not good news" if you have a specific agenda Sparks 

For the open-minded this is a fascinating new piece of information, and I applaud you (+1) for passing it on even though it is inconvenient to your usual position.

I look forward to hearing how it affects the commonly-held belief amongst many forum members that the police were thick-as-thieves with JM & the family...

[H]

In fact the police were none to keen on the extended family.

That's a little misleading. The extended family may have been seen as busy bodies when they were complaining about the police investigation and questioning their initial findings, but at some stage that clearly changed. Hence the drinking of whisky, employment of Ainsley and regular contact even today of some of the officers.

I think it's more the case that they weren't keen on being questioned rather than not keen on the individuals.

[smiffy]

Done a statement analysis of JB's september interviews in which Stan Jones played a big part and looked at his contributions too.

my overview.. JB was being truthful ...the very few deceptive indicators present gave no cause for concern and pass off as some genuine confusion and doubting going on within JB as he was being framed .

Stan Jone's ....in my view he knew for sure that JB was innocent and that he was out to fabricate a false case to frame JB. I also have no doubts that he knew for sure that JM was lying her head off and that many of her claims were bogus. This all comes through in how he asked the questions.

[bob]

Done a statement analysis of JB's september interviews in which Stan Jones played a big part and looked at his contributions too.

my overview.. JB was being truthful ...the very few deceptive indicators present gave no cause for concern and pass off as some genuine confusion and doubting going on within JB as he was being framed .

Stan Jone's ....in my view he knew for sure that JB was innocent and that he was out to fabricate a false case to frame JB. I also have no doubts that he knew for sure that JM was lying her head off and that many of her claims were bogus. This all comes through in how he asked the questions.

I've done statement analysis on the above and have determined that it is a blatent attempt to take this thread off-topic so that you don't have to address the inconvenient facts revealed by JM's friend (which is, of course the topic of this thread).

[smiffy]

BOB the troll   

[grahameb]

Well, it's not good news from Mugford's friend.

The police were none to keen on her.

In fact the police were none to keen on the extended family.

It does appear that the police offered Mugford a deal but that there was nothing sinister or underhand in their actions.

They made it clear that if she was ever caught breaking the law again she would be dealt with just like anyone else.

Her friend has offered up a little more info, but nothing that would impact on anything much.

The underhanded and sinister bit was the deal itself. The fact remains she was not charged with being an accessory after the fact regarding the "murders".

[bob]

Well, it's not good news from Mugford's friend.

The police were none to keen on her.

In fact the police were none to keen on the extended family.

It does appear that the police offered Mugford a deal but that there was nothing sinister or underhand in their actions.

They made it clear that if she was ever caught breaking the law again she would be dealt with just like anyone else.

Her friend has offered up a little more info, but nothing that would impact on anything much.

The underhanded and sinister bit was the deal itself. The fact remains she was not charged with being an accessory after the fact regarding the "murders".

Surely that is commonplace though Grahame? There are hundreds of examples of people being granted immunity in return for testifying against others. It is a question of whether it is in the interest of society to see the "greater" villain(s) put away in return for the lesser accomplice(s) walking free. Mostly that would seem like a reasonable approach for the CPS to take surely?

[smiffy]

sinister or underhand may be opinions which may be formed from the context of what the matter was.
if it was not sinister or underhand then the persons involved would have been totally open and upfront about all aspects involved.
If they were not totally open, up front and honest about all aspects then it can be justly said that things were sinister and underhand.

[Newbury1]

I have just had some amazing news and I am beside myself with excitement

Hard work does pay off friends in high places etc

I will pm all JB s loyal supporters later this afternoon

I know that you can't give out details, Jack, but is it the breakthrough you've been waiting for?

(And can I still come to the party?!!)

Wish I could tell but I can't.

When can we expect the news to break?

I should think you will see it in the newspapers. How soon I cannot tell? It is just too risky to be public knowledge right now.

Hi Grahame, I have been away on hols and am just catching up. Has this news been in the papers or is it still to come out?

[grahameb]

Well, it's not good news from Mugford's friend.

The police were none to keen on her.

In fact the police were none to keen on the extended family.

It does appear that the police offered Mugford a deal but that there was nothing sinister or underhand in their actions.

They made it clear that if she was ever caught breaking the law again she would be dealt with just like anyone else.

Her friend has offered up a little more info, but nothing that would impact on anything much.

The underhanded and sinister bit was the deal itself. The fact remains she was not charged with being an accessory after the fact regarding the "murders".

Surely that is commonplace though Grahame? There are hundreds of examples of people being granted immunity in return for testifying against others. It is a question of whether it is in the interest of society to see the "greater" villain(s) put away in return for the lesser accomplice(s) walking free. Mostly that would seem like a reasonable approach for the CPS to take surely?

Well my view rightly or wrongly is that if the law cannot be trusted in the least things, how can they be trusted in the greater things. The plain facts were Mugford "new" (according to her) about the "murders" long before she went to the cops. so that makes her an accessory after the fact. I don't think it is the police's job to be judge and jury and decide what crimes are greater than others. But as you say it is widespread. That and that alone leads me to the view that the police cannot be trusted. For they are not upright in the least of things. So they cannot be upright in the greater things.

[grahameb]

I have just had some amazing news and I am beside myself with excitement

Hard work does pay off friends in high places etc

I will pm all JB s loyal supporters later this afternoon

I know that you can't give out details, Jack, but is it the breakthrough you've been waiting for?

(And can I still come to the party?!!)

Wish I could tell but I can't.

When can we expect the news to break?

I should think you will see it in the newspapers. How soon I cannot tell? It is just too risky to be public knowledge right now.

Hi Grahame, I have been away on hols and am just catching up. Has this news been in the papers or is it still to come out?

No the news is still in its early stages. It's up to Jackie whether she feels the need to publicise it or not. What I will day though, it is a genuine turn up for the books and it isn't just sensationalism. Also it is up to the newspaper as to whether they think it is newsworthy when it is finally released. But without saying too much, I will say that it does involve top players.

[HMEssex]

Well, it's not good news from Mugford's friend.

The police were none to keen on her.

In fact the police were none to keen on the extended family.

It does appear that the police offered Mugford a deal but that there was nothing sinister or underhand in their actions.

They made it clear that if she was ever caught breaking the law again she would be dealt with just like anyone else.

Her friend has offered up a little more info, but nothing that would impact on anything much.

By extended family, are you referring to Mugford's or Jeremy's?

[Sparkfilms]

I'm only giving feedback on what has come back from Tiptree, and I'm using someone else's words to convey this.

I was hoping for something that we could all get our teeth into, but on this occasion, it was not forthcoming.

If anything, Mugford's friend had less general knowledge on the actual case than many of those who contribute to this forum.

She presumed Jeremy guilty I'm afraid and so did the close network that she hung out with.

If I may repeat - this is / was her take on events.

She's given me several other contacts but she didn't think they would stray much from her own opinions.

[shonapugs]

I'm only giving feedback on what has come back from Tiptree, and I'm using someone else's words to convey this.

I was hoping for something that we could all get our teeth into, but on this occasion, it was not forthcoming.

If anything, Mugford's friend had less general knowledge on the actual case than many of those who contribute to this forum.

She presumed Jeremy guilty I'm afraid and so did the close network that she hung out with.

If I may repeat - this is / was her take on events.

She's given me several other contacts but she didn't think they would stray much from her own opinions.

It's very decent of you to post this, Sparks. It probably isn't what most of the people on here want to read.